Multiple Claims For Same Accident Not Maintainable Under Employee's Compensation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Background

Raju, a truck driver, died in a road accident in 2013 while transporting bricks from Chandigarh to Theog. His mother, Shibi Devi, filed a claim alleging dependency on her son's earnings. The employer confirmed Raju's employment, his valid driving license, and his salary. However, Tata AIG, the insurer, argued that the claim was barred, as Raju's widow and daughter had already settled this claim in 2015 through an agreement before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

However, in 2023, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded Shibi Devi ₹2,34,053 in compensation and imposed a penalty of ₹1,05,324 on the employer (“2023 award”). This was awarded on the grounds that she was a dependent of the deceased and claimed to have been excluded from the earlier settlement. Aggrieved by this decision, the insurer, the employer, and Shibi Devi herself (seeking enhancement) filed appeals.

Arguments

Tata AIG and the employer argued that the mother's petition was not maintainable as the widow and daughter had already settled the claim in 2015. They submitted that only one claim is permissible for a single accident and that the earlier award had attained finality. Further, they argued that all dependents should have been impleaded in the first petition itself.

Shibi Devi countered saying that she was completely dependent on her late husband's earning. Despite being a dependent under the Employee's Compensation Act, she argued that she was excluded from the 2015 claim. She claimed that the insurer failed to verify dependents at the time of settlement. This failure, she stressed, invalidated the entire 2015 settlement itself.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, only one claim is maintainable per cause of action. It held that all dependents must be included in the initial petition. It explained that the compensation awarded either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Employee's Compensation Act represents the amount payable to all legal representatives of the deceased.

Further, the court explained that the proviso to Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that an application for compensation must be filed for the benefit of all legal representatives. It ruled that if some dependents are not part of the initial petition, they must be impleaded as respondents.

Lastly, the court observed that Shibi Devi neither sought impleadment in the earlier proceedings nor did she challenge the 2015 award. It held that her failure to do so at the time barred her from filing a separate claim years later. Since the 2015 settlement covered all dependents collectively, the court ruled that her subsequent petition in 2023 was not maintainable. Thus, it allowed the appeals filed by the insurer and the employer, and set aside the 2023 award.

Decided on: 13-12-2024

Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:14477 | Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shibi Devi

Counsel For the Insurer: Mr. Jagdish Thakur

Counsel For Shibi Devi: Mr. Rajat Kumar

Counsel For the Employer: -

Click Here To Read/Download The Order